U.S. won't 'tiptoe' around China with Asia stability at threat - defence chief

[Morch]

Just now, oilinki said:

This is what the most of tend to hope, but then again, there is also the underlying fear that USA has actually changed forever. 

 

The trust bond between USA and Europe has been broken by Trump. 

 

On EU point of view, there could not be a broken bond between EU and USA prior Trump. It was simply not a thing to thing about. 

 

Now that that trust has been broken, EU has realized that it has to rely on itself, as this kind of break of friendship is actually possible. 

In the long term, EU and USA will still be friends, but the kind of friends when your best mate who is also your boss frucked you wife - friends. 

 

It's complicated. 

 

 

 

Again, I think most leaderships in the West aren't really as daft as posters sometimes paint them. They know how the election system in the USA works, they know the score. The-sky-is-falling stuff is, I think, mostly for public consumption and for short-term political gains. 

 

It's not bad for the EU to have a bit of a wake-up call about relations with the USA. Maybe healthier this way. But still, kinda doubt that it got what it takes to upgrade itself into the next level. At least not any time soon. The trouble with that is that the World doesn't stand still, and there are forces, domestic and foreign working against such efforts.

[55Jay]

20 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Again, I think most leaderships in the West aren't really as daft as posters sometimes paint them. They know how the election system in the USA works, they know the score. The-sky-is-falling stuff is, I think, mostly for public consumption and for short-term political gains. 

 

It's not bad for the EU to have a bit of a wake-up call about relations with the USA. Maybe healthier this way. But still, kinda doubt that it got what it takes to upgrade itself into the next level. At least not any time soon. The trouble with that is that the World doesn't stand still, and there are forces, domestic and foreign working against such efforts.

Sorry, I've had a few G&Ts, but I respect your views and wonder what your thoughts are, if any, on my stream of consciousness a few posts above this ^^.  I'm not a Trumpadoodle.  I'm not a Libtard. Gotta be a sensible, middle path.

Edited June 1, 2019 by 55Jay

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Sorry, I've had a few G&Ts, but I respect your views and wonder what you thought of my stream of consciousnesses a few posts above this ^^.  I'm not a Trumpadoodle.  I'm not a Libtard either. Gotta be a middle path....

 

Western leaders have a short attention span, due to political constraints. That puts them at a disadvantage when trying to deal with countries such as China or Russia.

 

Obama was further constrained - what with trying to play fair, and acting responsibly. Was he weak? Maybe. Or perhaps not reckless, depends how you look at it. Don't see Trump as "strong" on China - because he lacks focus, understanding and a clear realistic long term goal. Plus hard to say if he'll do one of his flip flops and call it off.

 

Generally speaking, yes. The USA should have confronted China a long time ago, or rather, not allow itself to come to a situation where the terms are what they are. I know some like to see Trump as the wrong tool for the right job, but IMO, the right job can't be done with the wrong tool. So not expecting much of an actual result out of this. Well, not quite - if it doesn't come to blows, or any other major disruption, maybe that's something.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I'm personally really tired of the eagerness to have ever going wars. If one war ends, then there is a need to create yet another one. 

 

I wish the next war USA starts will be fight on USA soil. That is the only way for the people of the USA to really experience what war is. Dead American mothers, dead American children. 

 

This is what is lacking of the American war experience. It's also the one thing what USA really needs to be able stop being to be so hawkish. 

 

EU pays hugely for USA wars as those are fight close to us. We get the refugees on masses. I haven't heard USA paying for these costs. 

 

We don't want wars. We don't want to spend stupid moneys to our militaries. 

 

We want peace and put our money's to education and healthcare. 

 

Yeah, and I'm kinda tired of posters going on about how they want peace, then wishing the horrors of war on the USA. Dead American mothers, dead American children. Lovely. Add to this the usual wide-brush views of the USA and Americans.

 

If the EU doesn't want no part of foreign wars, then it could decline to partake. Perhaps your complaints ought to be focused at EU (or European) leaders who go down this road.

 

 

 

 

[55Jay]

.

Edited June 1, 2019 by 55Jay

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

There's a reason.  Response not quite right in execution. But not entirely wrong?

 

I don't know. It's tempting to accept the premise. But IMO, with Trump the execution is often so wrong, that it robs the effort of what value it might have had. 

[55Jay]

Just now, oilinki said:

When Obama spoke, he spoke with the voice of 320 million USA citizens as well as with the voice of 500 million EU citizens. That is the power of co-operation. 

 

He was far stronger than Trump can be.

It was wonderful.  I had a lot of "hope" then but sadly, President Obama was sucked into the bubble that all, or most, Presidents are sucked into.  Personally, I was looking forward to an exit from Iraq and Afghanistan, as a start.  He got one, but succumbed to pressure on the second.  He should have stayed strong.  I don't fault him for that.  It must be hard defying a table full of "advisors".  I get it.  He did his best.  But he should have been stronger.

 

Trump isn't a Warmonger.  He's a Manhattan Liberal Democrat for fk's sake!

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I do wish peace and if it's apparent that experiencing real war horrors in the first hand for americans, then I'm all for it. 

 

War is like that in the countries where wars are fought. 

 

It's apparent that USA has not learned the lesson yet. 

 

If EU doesn't wish to partake the wars USA initiates, do you mean that USA is then willing to accommodate the millions of war refugees, who are fleeing the wars?

 

That sounds like a good deal for us. Also probably not the best deal for the Middle Eastern refugees. 

 

 

Nah, that boat sailed. You can't have it both ways.

 

And no, there are countries who went through wars without it having a particularly moderating effect. Might be so with regard to Europe, doesn't hold true universally.

 

If the EU doesn't want to partake in wars, the first thing would be not to partake in wars. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, European forces are (or were) involved in countries where refugees are coming from. How the EU handles issues like the refugee crisis is up to the EU. If one sees Europe as some improved alternative superpower, then one ought to hold it accountable and responsible for its policies.

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, oilinki said:

When Obama spoke, he spoke with the voice of 320 million USA citizens as well as with the voice of 500 million EU citizens. That is the power of co-operation. 

 

He was far stronger than Trump can be. 

 

 

 

Obama got wall-to-wall support in both the USA and the EU? And people complain about Trump & Co. using "alternative facts".

[55Jay]

12 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Obama was well liked in the Europe. However he didn't deliver the way we would have liked. 

 

Trump might not be a warmonger, but he is now pretty much cornered and surrounded by hawks. 

 

If Trump is a tiger, he will fight back and do whatever is required for his own survival.

If Trump is a turtle, he'll simply seek comfort in his own cover. 

 

What Trump is, when pushed to the edge?

What did President Obama fail to deliver to the EU or, at best, for your expectations?

 

We shall see what Trump is.  I don't want to sound like a cheer leader, because I'm not, but so far, he's endured many attacks, far more than many before him.

 

I'm not a fan, by any means, but you have to give him credit for steadfastness.  I would have resigned and said "fk you" a long time ago. 

Edited June 1, 2019 by 55Jay

[55Jay]

Just now, oilinki said:

Pomelo and other has been flying to the Europe rather often for the past weeks. I can only assume that the reason of these visits is to "approve", and not even join the war which USA is about to have against Iran. 

 

This coming war is pretty much which is USA/Trump initiated and created. Even if EU doesn't want anything to do with that yet another stupid war, we'll have to pay the bill.

 

Is USA going to pay us back for it's wars?

 

While I do understand and am willing to live under the wings of USA military protection, I however wish the current USA government and the people of USA to know that we are paying quite an heavy price for these "must have yet another war" exercises. 

 

Not to mention the real human costs on those countries, USA is having her wars and therefore supporting her military corporations. 

 

It's far better not to push so much money to the military engine, so that we could have peace instead. 

Funny you mention the flights.  I was in Bahrain before the 2nd Gulf War action.  Rumsfeld flew in there just before to touch base. 

 

Still, Iran isn't an innocent sweetheart, so let's not pretend they are. 

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I don't know what you mean. Obama had EU's support. 

 

Is this were you stop following your own posts? What you actually asserted was that Obama had the full support of all USA and EU citizens. That's not even remotely true.

 

Further, it's not like that there weren't wars and fighting during Obama's term. The EU partook in these. And now you say the EU supported Obama. Them refugees you whine about? During Obama's term.

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Pomelo and other has been flying to the Europe rather often for the past weeks. I can only assume that the reason of these visits is to "approve", and not even join the war which USA is about to have against Iran. 

 

This coming war is pretty much which is USA/Trump initiated and created. Even if EU doesn't want anything to do with that yet another stupid war, we'll have to pay the bill.

 

Is USA going to pay us back for it's wars?

 

While I do understand and am willing to live under the wings of USA military protection, I however wish the current USA government and the people of USA to know that we are paying quite an heavy price for these "must have yet another war" exercises. 

 

Not to mention the real human costs on those countries, USA is having her wars and therefore supporting her military corporations. 

 

It's far better not to push so much money to the military engine, so that we could have peace instead. 

 

So bottom line, the EU is neither accountable, nor responsible for anything? Not even it's own policies, decisions and actions? The EU doesn't have to partake in wars its (supposedly) not interested in. The EU doesn't have to open the gates to all refugees (or at least, not in the manner it did). And living under the wings of USA military protection would probably come with a price anyway.

 

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, oilinki said:

No, Iran is not the sweetheart, but at least Iran played the ball with us and with our regulations. 

 

Iran kept it's word, which is what most of us appreciate. 

 

Deals between multiple countries are hard to combine, but those are possible as long as there is mutual will between partners. 

 

USA broke this deal between multiple, far larger entities, than USA. That's pretty unforgivable. 

 

I really hope there will not be a war in Iran. 

 

Sure. Iran plays by the rules. I think the Netherlands government sees things a tad differently.

It's not so much about Iran keeping its word, more to do with a very strict inspections regime, which is in place precisely because Iran isn't trusted to play by the rules, if unsupervised.

 

Doubt you're not aware that the then administration signing up for said agreement wasn't quite as straightforward or simple as presented.

 

This topic is about China, though. Maybe you wanna address some examples of China's disregard for international issues? Or is this just the weekend USA bash topic?

 

 

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, oilinki said:

Don't do that. I respect you far more than yet another TV poster. 

 

What we talk is really the essence of trust in world politics. There are people with whom you can disagree even harashly, but you would still trust them to do the right thing. Obama was one of those presidents. 

 

One smart man said that USA has always been a country, which makes occasional mistakes, but at it's heart USA aims to do good things. 

 

While I disagree with many of USA policies, I think that smart man was correct in his analysis. At least prior Trump and perhaps even during Trump administration. 

 

What scares me is the trend of USA becoming more and more military nation. USA used to be the science nation, which I highly respect. Being open to learn new things, creating all kind of new innovations, being generally a positive nation, which others could look up to - I wish my country to be like USA. That is no more. 

 

Well, that's what you want to talk about, anyway. The topic is actually about USA-China relations.

And how does that relate to the OP?

[55Jay]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

Or is this just the weekend USA bash topic?

As an observer, your comments seem to more circumspect/balanced than the others.

Edited June 1, 2019 by 55Jay

[55Jay]

Just now, oilinki said:

That observation is expected. There is a big difference of required energy when trying to hold the status quo compared to trying to change the tattooed views of the people. 

Oh please, I'm far from the "tattooed views" of the people.  Clap trap.

[55Jay]

Get over yourself, Euroman.  LOL.

[55Jay]

Oh, Ok.  No worries.  Cheers.

 

Edit:  And good night. ????

Edited June 1, 2019 by 55Jay

[Redline]

15 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

"Behaviour that erodes other nations' sovereignty and sows distrust of China's intentions must end."

"The United States has accused Huawei of espionage"

 

What a joke. the USA has military bases all over the world is invading and bombing several countries.

The CIA is spying on countries who are their alleys.

We get you like the communist system ????

[Redline]

Smack em down ????

[Morch]

17 hours ago, oilinki said:

That observation is expected. There is a big difference of required energy when trying to hold the status quo compared to trying to change the tattooed views of the people. 

 

Nah, it's much easier to take extreme views, strong positions and pepper posts with slogans and populist notions. Keeping perspective is less sexy, and requires more effort. Same goes for consistency, seems like a bad word with some.

[tonbridgebrit]

On 6/1/2019 at 10:57 AM, Morch said:

 

Fantasies are free. China isn't going to "join" with Russia or vice versa.

Morch, do get real.

During the Cold War, Washington hated Russia. Washington didn't nuke Russia, because Russia would have fired it's own nukes. The Cold War is over, but we know that Washington and Russia are still fighting proxy wars. To suggest that America's nukes are aimed at Russia would be putting it lightly.

What about China ?  Washington has disliked Beijing ever since Mao Zedong defeated Chiang Kai-Shek in the Chinese civil war. There are a few crazy people in the White House right now, who are trying to make it look like that "China is a threat to world peace".  China is not a threat to world peace. But people like you are refusing to declare that "China is NOT a threat to world peace".


So, Washington actually wants to fight against both Russia and China. To suggest that Russia and China would rather combine to defend themselves against America, rather than fight against America as two seperate parties, that's putting it lightly.

I mean, so America fights Russia and China. What, so Russia and China will fight against America, but Russia and China will not coordinate their military action ? Stop being silly.

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎6‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 3:23 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

And you seriously think other so called first world western democracies don't?

My country is one of the first who do follow the USA as a lapdog in their hunt for resources.

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 1:14 AM, 55Jay said:

What did President Obama fail to deliver to the EU or, at best, for your expectations?

 

We shall see what Trump is.  I don't want to sound like a cheer leader, because I'm not, but so far, he's endured many attacks, far more than many before him.

 

I'm not a fan, by any means, but you have to give him credit for steadfastness.  I would have resigned and said "fk you" a long time ago. 

Closing Quantanamo

[Morch]

4 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, do get real.

During the Cold War, Washington hated Russia. Washington didn't nuke Russia, because Russia would have fired it's own nukes. The Cold War is over, but we know that Washington and Russia are still fighting proxy wars. To suggest that America's nukes are aimed at Russia would be putting it lightly.

What about China ?  Washington has disliked Beijing ever since Mao Zedong defeated Chiang Kai-Shek in the Chinese civil war. There are a few crazy people in the White House right now, who are trying to make it look like that "China is a threat to world peace".  China is not a threat to world peace. But people like you are refusing to declare that "China is NOT a threat to world peace".


So, Washington actually wants to fight against both Russia and China. To suggest that Russia and China would rather combine to defend themselves against America, rather than fight against America as two seperate parties, that's putting it lightly.

I mean, so America fights Russia and China. What, so Russia and China will fight against America, but Russia and China will not coordinate their military action ? Stop being silly.

 

Got to love that in your propaganda-like posts, the USA is reduced to Washington. How come countries you support aren't called Beijing or Moscow? Whatever.

 

As for the rest - your presentation doesn't relate anything about either China or Russia being hostile toward the USA, whether in the past or in the present. I doubt most people would accept that as a "real" proposition. The claimed "hate" and "dislike" weren't and aren't a one-way street.

 

Try as you might to paint it otherwise, China is an aggressive neighbor, a dodgy business partner, and a repressive regime on top. You don't see China as a threat to World peace, that's your choice. Nothing to do with "people like me" refusing do "declare" this or that. Doubt my opinions and views got that much pull. As for the White House, the basic take on China haven't really changed much - just the response.

 

And the usual jumping off to bogus conclusions - the USA does not "actually wants to fight against both Russia and China". Not even against one of them. That's something you made up, and it's about as "real" as asserting the two countries would "combine to defend themselves". That you think it logical, doesn't make it "real".

 

 

[tonbridgebrit]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Got to love that in your propaganda-like posts, the USA is reduced to Washington. How come countries you support aren't called Beijing or Moscow? Whatever.

 

Morch, I use the word "Washington" and not "America" because I want to make it clear that I am not criticising the American people, I am criticising the US government. Yes, Washington means or denotes the government of the USA. I've got nothing against the American people. About a third of all Americans are against the US government's foreign policy. And those Americans who support their government's foreign policy, well, a fair number of them people don't realise that Washington is using the media to create a false image of planet earth.
As for Russia and China, most people reckon, "look, the government or the people there are being criticised, well, it makes hardly any difference".  As in, criticise the Chinese government, or criticise the people there, most people feel it makes no difference.


Hostility between these countries ?
Morch, this post is actually about Washington telling China "look, you carry on with your foreign policy in Asia, we, Washington are going to attack you, we'ill fight a war against you". Surely, you accept that ?  And indeed, a small number of people here on ThaiVisa are "cheering on Washington talking about war against China". Some people reckon that Washington should have declared war on China earlier, about two decades earlier.
Now, Russia, they're not exactly threatening to declare war on China, because of China's policy in Asia, surely you accept that ? Are Russia's military ships sailing near the Chinese built islands ? Off-course not. It's Washington who is ordering it's ships to sail close to the twelve mile radius of some of these islands. Russia is not doing this.
And if we see Russian ships sailing close to the Chinese islands, without permission from China, well, yes, we can then say that Russia is also threatening action against China. They're not doing it.


And what about hostility between Washington and Russia ?  Well, that civil war in Syria, surely, you accept that it was a proxy war between America and Russia ?  As in, Russia backed Assad, Washington certainly did not. Washington backed some of the rebels, the rebels, they were against Assad. Hence, a proxy war between Washington and Russia.

Edited June 3, 2019 by tonbridgebrit

[Morch]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, I use the word "Washington" and not "America" because I want to make it clear that I am not criticising the American people, I am criticising the US government. Yes, Washington means or denotes the government of the USA. I've got nothing against the American people. About a third of all Americans are against the US government's foreign policy. And those Americans who support their government's foreign policy, well, a fair number of them people don't realise that Washington is using the media to create a false image of planet earth.
As for Russia and China, most people reckon, "look, the government or the people there are being criticised, well, it makes hardly any difference".  As in, criticise the Chinese government, or criticise the people there, most people feel it makes no difference.


Hostility between these countries ?
Morch, this post is actually about Washington telling China "look, you carry on with your foreign policy in Asia, we, Washington are going to attack you, we'ill fight a war against you". Surely, you accept that ?  And indeed, a small number of people here on ThaiVisa are "cheering on Washington talking about war against China". Some people reckon that Washington should have declared war on China earlier, about two decades earlier.
Now, Russia, they're not exactly threatening to declare war on China, because of China's policy in Asia, surely you accept that ? Are Russia's military ships sailing near the Chinese built islands ? Off-course not. It's Washington who is ordering it's ships to sail close to the twelve mile radius of some of these islands. Russia is not doing this.
And if we see Russian ships sailing close to the Chinese islands, without permission from China, well, yes, we can then say that Russia is also threatening action against China. They're not doing it.


And what about hostility between Washington and Russia ?  Well, that civil war in Syria, surely, you accept that it was a proxy war between America and Russia ?  As in, Russia backed Assad, Washington certainly did not. Washington backed some of the rebels, the rebels, they were against Assad. Hence, a proxy war between Washington and Russia.

 

Other than yourself, I doubt most people see the Chinese or the Russian governments as being exactly the same as the Chinese or the Russian People. As for the percentages on offer, in the USA people can freely criticize their government. I would guess that if this was true in China and Russia, results would have been similar. In both China and Russia, media isn't free - but by all means, do go on about using media for propaganda purposes.

 

Was there actually a threat of an attack? A war? Or are these things you madeup/exaggerated? Surely, I accept none of your false premises and misrepresentations.

 

What does Russia not being directly involved in the South China Sea issue got to do with anything? Who said anything about Russia threatening China over that issue? I mean, other than you. And Syria - how does Syria come into this topic other than as deflection?

 

Try harder.